Good morning Ron...thanks for the follow up.
Lets see...Monday morning...check
Ok...I can now play Monday morning quarterback... <grin>
I guess one of the things I was trying to point out (maybe not too
successfully) was the similarity of the FCC rules as they are written...
(97.103 Station License vs. 97.105 Control operator function)
Specifically pointing to 97.103 a&b...
The way "I" interpret those rules is that even if a guest op has the necessary
license (Extra in the US for FULL band privileges) the rules state that the
station owner AND the operator (who is the guest) are both EQUALLY responsible
for the proper operation of the station...
So, while an Extra guest op may have the necessary license to operate anywhere
in the US bands...if he is operating as a guest at another station it is STILL
the duty of the station owner to ENSURE the proper operation of the station
while said guest op is actively using the station. To me that would indicate
that the station owner would need to be PRESENT at the station and physically
in close proximity to the station equipment (read in the room) to ENSURE that
the station is being operated correctly. OR...as part 'b' of the rule goes on
to state, the station license is presumed to also be the control operator of
the station UNLESS he/she designates another as the control operator... Hence
my comment (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) that I hoped ALL of the former Single Op
efforts that were Guest Op's had documentation that the station licensee had
'designated' the guest op as the CONTROL op for the duration of the
contest...something tells me there wouldn't be a whole lot of documentation of
the sort to be found...at least not in the last 30 some odd years...
Fundamentally, my issue is that there are two trains of thought (in this
thread) on whether a Control Op constitutes a 2nd operator...AS DEFINED by the
CONTEST RULES. Unless or Until a control op needs to take control of the
station due to some mistake or other 'misdeed' by the guest op I don't see the
control operator as an OPERATOR...he/she is simply a MONITOR.
As for Yuri's specific predicament...if the ARRL chose to reclassify as a
Multi-Op, I think the ONLY class that would work would be M/M because M/M
places no bandchange or timelimit rules on the operation...M/S and M/2 both
do...and as such wouldn't work.
73,
Marty
---- Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net> wrote:
> Marty,
>
> I appreciate your comments. Clearly we all don't see eye-to-eye on exactly
> when a control operator is or is not considered an operator for the purposes
> of the contest.
>
> I respectfully disagree with the notion that one can be a Control Operator
> under FCC rules, yet not be considered an operator of the station while it
> is in the contest. The key, to me, is that the Control Op (in not so many
> words) must be PRESENT, AND must be in CONTROL. To my thinking, the
> combination implies... in fact, pretty much demands... that the Control Op
> MUST be considered a station op for the contest, otherwise, the
> under-licensed op can not operate outside of his or her license privileges.
>
> In any event, after reviewing the first link in Brett (ex)VR2BG's earlier
> post... well, I've said all along that we don't know everything. Now I
> understand why Yuri's log may have received additional scrutiny... because
> it would certainly appear from that link (scroll down to the FCC enforcement
> section) that this very situation HAS happened before.
>
> It certainly does make me wonder why Yuri says he didn't understand why
> KP2MM was DQ'd, considering what happened with KF0R in the 2004 ARRL DX CW
> contest (I believe I have the year right, as it's not explicitly mentioned
> in the article).
>
> So... well, I think I've made my position on the rules interpretation clear.
> I may be wrong (certainly wouldn't be the first time!) but I don't think I
> am. So I am going to bow out of further beatings of the deceased equine at
> this time.
>
> 73
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Martin Durham
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:39 PM
> To: Ron Notarius W3WN
> Cc: Dick Green WC1M; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
>
> Not 'quite' Ron......Not a lot of difference between control op and station
> licensee requirements when it's your station.
>
> Per the part 97 rules from the current ARRL FCC rules page:
>
> §97.105 Control operator duties.-
>
> (a) The control operator must ensure the immediate proper operation of the
> station, regardless of the type of control.
>
> (b) A station may only be operated in the manner and to the extent permitted
> by the privileges authorized for the class of operator license held by the
> control operator.
>
> <http://www.arrl.org/part-97-amateur-radio> §97.103 Station licensee
> responsibilities.-
>
> (a) The station licensee is responsible for the proper operation of the
> station in accordance with the FCC Rules. When the control operator is a
> different amateur operator than the station licensee, both persons are
> equally responsible for proper operation of the station.
>
> (b) The station licensee must designate the station control operator. The
> FCC will presume that the station licensee is also the control operator,
> unless documentation to the contrary is in the station records.
>
> (c) The station licensee must make the station and the station records
> available for inspection upon request by an FCC representative. When deemed
> necessary by a District Director to assure compliance with the FCC Rules,
> the station licensee must maintain a record of station operations containing
> such items of information as the District Director may require in accord
> with § 0.314(x) of the FCC Rules.
>
>
> One could arguably make the case that whether the station is being operated
> by a lower class licensee or an Extra class licensee who is not the primary
> station licensee, the primary station licensee (presumed control operator)
> should be present when the station is in operation… LOTS of SO efforts in
> the records that were by ‘guest op’s…
>
> I ‘suppose’ if you want some wiggle room…97.105 a) says “Immediate proper
> operation” whereas 97.103 a) says “proper operation”.
>
> Hmmm…station owner turns on the equipment and gets everything ‘all tuned up’
> and ready to go before the guest op arrives…is THAT assistance?
>
> I remember back around the first year I was a ham (30+ years ago)…my elmer
> explaining to me what a control operator was supposed to ‘do’ (you won’t
> find this in the FCC rules or ARRL contest Rules…but I think we’d all agree
> that this is the intent)…a control operator is supposed be close enough at
> hand to be able to take over/stop the transmitter/or disable the transmitter
> should the person who is operating it under the control operators ‘watchful’
> guidance do something against the rules.
>
> You have FCC rules which are THE rules…that must be followed…then the
> contest rules…which must be followed AS LONG AS they don’t cause you to
> break any of the FCC rules (this is for US amateurs)
>
> So…does a CONTROL operator really constitute a 2nd operator if all they do
> is ‘monitor’ the operation of the PRIMARY operator at the radio controls…to
> ensure that the FCC rules are followed? The control operator doesn’t
> (presumably) log, doesn’t (receive to aid the PRIMARY operator), and doesn’t
> transmit. What exactly did the CONTROL operator due that a station operator
> wouldn’t do to ensure that the station is operated within the rules?
>
> This is all based on the ARRL contest and the specific KP2MM scenario…WW
> contests add in the whole 3rd party issue which is a whole ‘nother’
> discussion…
>
> 73,
>
> Marty
>
> W1Minutuae Discriminator
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 24, 2012, at 4:13 PM, "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > If you come over to my house to operate, as an Extra Class operator, I do
> > not need to be present as a control operator. So in the unlikely event
> that
> > this would happen, yes, my presence would not necessarily indicate that I
> am
> > there to be a legal control operator.
> >
> > On the other hand, when my friend Ben KB3ERQ comes over to my house to
> > operate, as a Technician Class operator, I MUST legally be present as a
> > control operator, UNLESS he is operating within the limits of a Tech. (Or
> > someone of a higher license class must be present as the designated
> control
> > op, if you really want to split hairs that thinly.) Therefore, my presence
> > WOULD indicate that I am there as a legal control operator (when Ben is
> > operating outside of Tech privileges). Not, to me, a hypothetical
> situation
> > either, since Ben is a member of my multi-single team for multiple
> contests.
> >
> > So, Dick, with all due respect, you can split the proverbial hairs however
> > you like. I really don't feel like playing arm-chair lawyer (that's what
> I
> > have K3AIR for, anyway). To me, the unfortunate situation is
> > cut-and-dried... Yuri operated KP2MM outside of General privileges. So
> > either he was in violation of the rules for doing so; or if he did so with
> a
> > legal control operator (Herb) present, then he was legally operating
> > Multi-Single & entered in the wrong entry class. It's either one or the
> > other, and no arm-chair lawyering will change that.
> >
> > And again, we don't know the full story. Yuri hasn't amplified his
> original
> > public post that I am aware of (outside of some indicated PM's which have
> > remained private), nor is the ARRL Contest Committee saying anything (not
> > that I would have expected them to). So there may be more to the story
> that
> > we are not aware of.
> >
> > Granted, it's no fun to have your fingers burned in a situation like this,
> > which is why he has my sympathies.
> >
> > 73, ron w3wn
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dick Green WC1M [mailto:wc1m73@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 2:43 PM
> > To: 'Ron Notarius W3WN'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|